Site Visit Executive has submitted lots of written Principles of Supply Line Logistics to include detailed universal constants applicable to all aspects of logistics including responsiveness, simplicity, flexibility, economy, attainability, sustainability & survivability. In addition to these principles, many other logistics considerations exist to keep Site Visit Executive in Business so installations of any size can use supply line routing application to apply smart techniques to deal with disparate situational connections realised when addressing supplier group contacts. These considerations will not always dictate a specific course of action, but will assist Site Visit Executive in maximising effectiveness & efficiency of logistics operations if used smartly. Here we present the following Supply Line Logistics considerations:

1. Integrated Forward Focus of Supply Lines Missions cannot be conducted successfully without adequate logistics support—will never be effective if supply line connections are planned/executed without detailed coordination of functions it supports. Although requirements for integration are obvious, DoD teams are currently organised on a functional basis that inhibits this coordination. Oversight provided by Site Visit Executive is required to ensure essential functional integration occurs to produce well-considered plans for executing critical field-level missions. The focus of logistics support is projected to theater and forward operational points, and from higher levels of support to lower levels. Continuous resupply systems must take form of either automatic or requisitioning replenishment. Site Visit Executive must design balance of push/pull replenishment to support operations, relieving dispatcher teams from logistics support of details without impairing dispatch control of basic logistics support capabilities. The replenishment system must effectively use available transit of supplies to maximise throughput & minimise expenditure of resources in the pipeline.2. Supply Line Routing Constraints Logistics resources are usually constrained so Site Visit Executive must be disciplined to accommodate these constraints. At the strategic level, limitations are usually either fiscal constraints or the unavailability of materiel & skilled installation resources. Long lead times for mobilisation & deployment can also affect the strategic concentration of forces and supplies within theater. At the operational and tactical levels, common limitations are attributed to inadequate transit means/capacities as well as insufficient quantities of certain munitions, equipment, and critical spare parts. Lack of trained logistics dispatchers can lead to failures in planning for adequate or interoperable command, control, communications & information systems meeting routing demands designed by Site Visit Executive.3. Supply Line Materiel Common Standards: Site Visit Executive has extensively promoted Standardisation in commonality of equipment and uniformity of procedures designed to make complex tasks easier to execute in a timely manner. Commonality of equipment reduces the number of different upgrade/repair procedures involved and reduces the amount and type of support equipment complexity. Standardisation promotes economy by reducing unnecessary expenditures. It also promotes productivity, flexibility & system reliability. Performance Standards determine mission effectiveness and consist of statement executed by Site Visit Executive identifying expected proficiency levels providing minimum acceptable parameters, specified for supply line connections in terms of completeness, accuracy, time required and event sequence. Standards for collective events describe desired end-state and purpose of event to be objective, quantifiable & readily observed. 4. Centralisation of Supply Line Dispatch Centralised control and decentralised execution are ideals sought in logistics support operations. If achieved, support will be responsive, economical, and flexible. Site Visit Executive has determined good balance between centralisation and decentralisation of logistics operation functions is usually difficult to achieve. Control may suffer because it is fragmented, or support may fall short because services and materiel are too concentrated. Consequently, Visiting Executive must use judgment and experience to achieve optimal mix of centralised control and decentralised execution based on specific circumstances popping up in fluid mission tasks. Centralised control is most effective at the strategic levels, drawing on existing support infrastructure, established procedures established by Site Visit Executive & stability of missions in theatre. The degree of centralisation varies at the operational level since forces can be fragmented, sometimes over great distances, and operations often take place under problematic expeditionary conditions. At the tactical level, the degree of centralisation is determined by mission/concept of operations-- factors that often override purely logistical considerations.5. Supply Line Expenditure & Consumption Site Visit Executive must distinguish between consumption and expenditure in order to enhance both responsiveness and economy in designing requirements for supply line logistics support operations. Expenditure will always be greater than consumption because expenditure represents the sum of consumption, pipeline quantities, stocks & losses from unsuccessful missions. When determining requirements, reported results of missions in theatre must distinguish between consumption and expenditure. Site Visit Executive has submitted requirements based on anticipated consumption/expenditure rates, striving to identify consumption rates accurately & constantly refining expenditure rates. Usage factors require careful, constant reevaluation to ensure that they are based on current/accurate information.6. Supply Line Support Resource Levels Logistics plans must establish more than one option to provide support using equivalent means to include substitute modes of transit, sourcing supplies from different locations, or reassigning support tasks between different organisations. Certain degrees of planned redundant equipment work order tags are required but does not imply intentionally oversupplying or apportioning and allocating an excessive reserve. Site Visit Executive has designed several options essential to flexible support when fixed resources are apportioned or allocated for support of unique operations. Preplanned resource levels provide for provision or positioning of resources to ensure uninterrupted logistics support. Setting supply levels can result in variation of support capabilities available in a given location at a specified time. Site Visit Executive has created planning techniques to be considered when developing task-organised elements to accomplish specific functions considering the phasing of logistics support phases for time/location of supply provision to maximise operational effectiveness of logistics actions. If properly used, setting resource levels contributes to the responsiveness, economy, and flexibility of logistics support operations.7. Supply Line Logistics Materiel Reserve Cache Logistics can be a pacing factor at the operational level of critical missions. While the adequacy of logistics to sustain operations governs the rate at which critical mission campaigns can proceed, the presence of reserve capabilities can assist Site Visit Executive in determining if supply line connection opportunities are exploited or instead missed. Just as strategic and operational reserves are necessary to exploit tactical or operational success or to respond to new contingencies, materiel supply must be coordinated to ensure right levels of reserve logistics resources are established by Site Visit Executive at strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Logistics reserves are established for possible consumption by supported forces, but intent of operational plans designed by Site Visit Executive is not solely to cover pipeline expenditures of supporting forces. It is important to note that building logistics reserves must not take priority over satisfaction of imminent or immediate support requirements.8. Work Order Tags for Supply Line Dispatch Support Redundancy is the duplication of systems, units, or functions that provides alternate means of support if there is an interruption, failure, or loss of capability. Site Visit Executive has challenged existing concepts promoting notion that design of redundant capabilities constitutes contradiction of economies. But properly planned redundant work order tags have great potential provide assurance of continued support & contribute to enhanced responsiveness. Although redundancy does in fact improve flexibility and survivability of field-level units, redundancy of systems, units, or functions should be limited to only what is essential to accomplish the mission.9. Conservation of Supply Line Connections Conservation of misused materiel serves as one of the most important components of economy. Because limits always exist on available supplies/services, Site Visit Executive must continuously practice and enforce conservation to improve overall flexibility so resources are available elsewhere or at a later time. Means of conservation can include local rebuilding of spares when authorised. Smart use of resources promotes economy by avoiding excess and entails providing just enough materiel or services to accomplish the mission. Site Visit Executive actions are designed to provide for field-level requirements, but not every submitted request. Better use of resources will not eliminate supply line or service constraints, but it will reduce it to absolute essentials. Smart use of resources is encouraged even when field units are satisfied with level of support provided. Wide swings between misuse of excess & inadequate support jeopardise mission accomplishment.10. Control of Supply Pipeline Routing Levels Site Visit Executive has always maintained promotion of mandates for proper authorisation of form, fit & function metrics used for determination of materiel levels passing through processing points within a specified period of time. New techniques for Pipeline Flow design must be essential function of modern DoD supply systems so mission requirements are met when materiel and services flow from the supporting units to the supported units. Good flow cannot begin until requirements are identified and supplies/services procured. Until flow of materiel begins, field units must function with sustainment resources provided upon initial deployment. As procurement actions are accomplished, goods and services begin move through pipeline, eventually reaching state matching expenditures. Site Visit Executive has determined as result of extensive reviews of DoD field unit mission requirements many instances where throughput is affected by lead time period between requesting and receiving the supplies or services identified as essential to mission support. Sometimes the flow of the throughput system is interrupted and lead times must be gauged to anticipate such delays. Accompanying supplies and services must be adequately sized and timing of requisitions anticipated so that capabilities overlap or at least cover requirements throughout the lead time. Control of materiel supply pipeline throughput flow process is the single most important and demanding task for supporting forces. Supporting forces must be able to plan for and participate in integration of requirements and capabilities so flow of supplies and services can be adjusted/expedited as required by mission. Site Visit Executive has promoted extensive control measures to ensure an allowance for measured buildup of supplies and services at key installation points so diversion to field units with higher priorities in executing most critical in-theatre objectives can be realised in all Future Missions of the Force.

Creation of new techniques for DoD to assess condition/performance dimensions of equipment deployment must be defined, metrics measured, and interpreted based on goals and objectives of busy dispatchers aiming to utilise Upgrade/Repair work order creation as function of supply line connection. Condition/Performance measurement information provides dispatchers with smart tools so objective assessments of current operating constraints can be created from past trends and existing concerns for user-based issues coming up in creation of contract procurement quote systems, and the unmet requirements of installations for efficient equipment deployment.

Integration efforts must put maximum effort into implementing and monitoring condition/performance measurement programmes in order to be worthwhile and effective in assessing supply line capacity so equipment components can be provided to meet requirements of upgrade/repair simulations. DoD must carefully consider what equipment condition/performance results are indicating, and use the results of supply line connection techniques to both evaluate the success of past efforts and to help develop new ideas for improving future success of mobile operations for critical missions.

Specific remedial actions must not be mandated by rigid rules assessing particular condition/performance metric or measure results; instead, DoD tools should be used to flag supply line connections segments that either over-achieve or under-achieve, with specific and concrete actions determined by dispatchers on a case-by-case basis, depending on individual circumstances. Prior to the use of contract procurement quote scheduling techniques and other automated information technologies, determining individual installation supply line connection exposure for DoD operations required considerable manual record-keeping and record compilation to derive actual condition/performance metrics requirements for establishing properties of supply line materiel.

New techniques created for DoD by dispatchers can serve as crucial sources of information on how equipment deployment is dependent on supply line capacity volumes, mobile operation route traffic signal timing information based on contract procurement quotes & number of installations requesting upgrade/repair work orders from active dispatchers in meeting goals for creating smart processes to enable success of future mobile missions. DoD requirements of metrics and measures techniques for condition/performance evaluation must be balanced to avoid overwhelming dispatchers with massive amounts of supply line connection information to sift through to find the key drivers of upgrade/repair service quality, choosing between the vital few metrics and measures and the trivial many. DoD must set an upper limit of condition/performance metrics and measures to establish and track requirements for equipment upgrade/repair work order generation toward creating efficient deployment modes designed for mobile operations in order to avoid the results of unfocused, misdirected activities at installations. All too frequently, individual installations each try to optimise different subsets of equipment condition/performance metrics & measures, at the expense of process continuity, with no two installations having the same set of supply line requirement priorities in directing contract procurement quotes.

Timely reporting of condition/performance metrics can allow DoD to better understand and apply benefits resulting from actions designed to improve equipment upgrade/repair service. New tools designed by dispatchers also allow installations to quickly identify and react to consequences of supply line connection problem areas, usually leading to area deficits in equipment deployment. Dispatchers responsible for condition/performance reporting have noted that DoD executive types live & breathe by standard reports assessing supply line connection quality to provide equipment upgrade/repair components, and that if for some reason reports are late, they never tire to inquire about it.

Once dispatchers have implemented condition/performance metrics and measurement programmes for launch in DoD supply line connection pilot projects, the next steps consist of monitoring and reporting progress determination for regularly scheduled contract procurement quotes detailing requirements for equipment component delivery to set in motion critical upgrade/repair simulations. Clearly, most slow moving dispatch work order systems addressing equipment upgrade/repair requirements currently being used by DoD do not have a formal process in place to review and update current equipment condition/performance-based metrics and measurement programmes. DoD appears to subscribe to the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” philosophy. This approach is not recommended as long as DoD is not capable of recognising when their condition/performance metrics and measurement programmes are outdated and due for review so well-planned equipment upgrade/repair simulations can move forward at an acceptable or even truly enhanced pace. This Report highlights important issues affecting all modes/areas of establishing condition/performance metrics causing greatest concern to dispatchers in evaluating changing equipment upgrade/repair requirements designed to meet mission goals for future mobile operation scenarios. Key techniques and recommendations for DoD to employ in the build, use and implementation of equipment condition/performance measurement systems include awareness of limitations and tradeoffs prevalent in standard metrics: 1. Number of reported equipment condition/performance metrics—too many will overwhelm dispatchers, while too few may not present complete picture of upgrade/repair requirements 2. Amount of detail provided—general metrics and measures are easier for dispatchers to present, but detailed assessments incorporate more factors influencing operational outcomes 3. Types of comparisons to be made— will condition/performance metrics be evaluated only internally or compared with other installations? 4. Target audience— some dispatchers will be more familiar with equipment upgrade/repair simulation factors/concepts than others; unique types of metrics exist so trade-offs are addressed 5. Equipment deployment planning models are not always used to forecast growth of installation investments in contract procurement quote systems 6. Existing dispatch centres are not centralised to promote new work order generation patterns and demands on operational outcomes 7. Outputs from supply line mode-based characteristics are not used to calculate metrics and measures for disparate equipment type mobility 8. Equipment deployment routing trip generation capacity is not considered and must be designed based on requirements of mobile surge scenarios 9. Contract procurement quote system is not accessible to multiple installations so supply line connectivity is compromised 10. Still lack of emphasis on temporal modes of equipment upgrade/repair simulation action periods for work orders

What opportunities for DoD Logistics operations does this Service/Support Application address? Dispatchers enable smart sourcing of substitute parts of supply line connection value to DoD. The sourcing ticket schedule system allows for the provision and use of services and applications in equipment upgrade/repair simulation. DoD can utilise these resources by integrating them into their existing processes. Interoperability between logistics domains is ensured by transformation of service messages and use of open standards. Dispatchers create opportunities for DoD with benefit being it will become easier to integrate services with larger supply line connections through being able to process larger amounts of potential substitute resource sourcing ticket schedules since information user requirements are no longer an obstacle to upgrade/repair simulations. Dispatcher actions during simulations have strong impact on logistics unit success since dispatchers will be able to make a more efficient use of resources and better focus on utilisation of core equipment upgrade/repair competencies. Without big changes in logistics processes, translation of special abilities, user requirements and behaviour into equipment support/service may constrain the realisation of great value for such big institution as DoD. Dispatchers address the specific needs of DoD, with flexibility and operational application as key aspects for requirements of modern innovative techniques. User requirements feature unique behavioural processes that pose a competitive advantage for installations because of their specialisation, speed and ability to adapt to changes in demand for substitute part resources required for upgrade/repair operations. Dispatchers require systems supporting installation competition attributes compared to unstructured processes. Existing standard applications are usually not flexible enough to cope with this requirement. If systems are not customisable enough, adaptation is very expensive, which makes such systems unsuitable for DoD divisions with limited budgets. Dispatcher behavioural status updates respect both compromised structure of existing systems and potential competitive advantages deriving from specialisation and unique processes by not destroying or rearranging existing processes but instead focusing on adaptation. What benefits to DoD Logistics operations does Service/Support Application achieve and over what timescale? Dispatcher action offers many benefits to DoD equipment upgrade/repair operations effectively characterised as a way of working, a way of organising people, materials/technology; and creative process of designing certain tasks detailed by service/support applications. Essentially, service/support applications create coordination of work order tasks to achieve a specified operational outcome. Dispatcher activities, user requirements and behaviour are put into the substitute resource part component scheduling practise to attain certain upgrade/repair goals/objectives. But what differentiates application projects from other branches of oversight is that it is totally focused on a specific problem, and once that outcome has been achieved, the project work order requirements cease & project is stopped. Contrast that with oversight of certain logistics operations, for example; those are tasks which run continuously and have no one single end point. Dispatcher projects start at defined point of time, ends at specific point in time, and is complete when the outcome is achieved, normally definition of items in terms of specific tangible equipment part deliveries is complete. Commonly there are limited resources available - most frequently money & dispatcher time, user requirements and behavioural standards - with which and within which to deliver the desired outcome. When the outcome is delivered, something will have changed. Dispatcher projects share one common characteristic, the projection of ideas and activities into new equipment upgrade/repair endeavours. But even while different projects might have some common features, each project is unique, with a specific one-off set of activities. The principal identifying property of a project is its novelty. It is a step into the unknown, and is often characterised risk and uncertainty, especially relating to sourcing ticket schedules. No two projects are ever exactly alike: even a repeated project will differ from earlier versions in one or more DoD market-driven, administrative or physical aspects. Has the “size of the DoD market” been assessed by Service/Support Application Designers and what evidence has been given? Dispatcher Estimation of DoD market size is the first step in determining if equipment upgrade/repair simulation utilisation of newly designed service/support application is going to generate successful outcome. Dispatcher plans to launch new application products in an existing DoD market or expand into a new DoD market needs to know the potential market size to determine the minimum it must invest in user requirements processes & determine appropriate behavioural profiles in order to gain consensus between competing installations. Realistic estimates lead to more dependable projections for substitute parts sourcing ticket scheduling and better strategic planning. Dispatcher assessments of DoD market are an excellent start to designing equipment upgrade/repair programmes, but it is not indestructible recipe that, when followed, provides all the information needed to develop the user-based DoD market to achieve sourcing ticket schedule success in determination of information-based user requirements. Dispatcher behavioural profiles and programme design process do not win the whole game since there still exists considerable need for creativity, intuition and determination to succeed, just as in logistics sectors that do not involve DoD markets. Dispatcher limitations in DoD market assessments includes providing picture of the current and past markets and some indications of trends in the market, but does not show what will happen in the future. Therefore, information from DoD market assessments must be combined with an eye to the future to determine the best ways to expand utilisation of Service/Support Applications for achieving equipment upgrade/repair success. Dispatcher requirements for DoD market vision is particularly true for new and very innovative services that do not resemble anything currently being used by DoD. It is difficult for DoD users to provide an opinion of these types of services because they can’t envision how the services will help them without well-defined user requirements and through description of the behavioural aspects needed for proper deployment of the application. Dispatcher assessment of supply line connection status often requires different logistics models than currently exists. Very innovative equipment upgrade/repair simulations are required to create new service/support applications so a picture of current supply may not provide accurate information. Installation demand research for requirements of future operations at installations can be particularly unreliable in enabling dispatchers to predict the future demand for innovative services. In fact, conventional assessment techniques designed to value potential of upgrade/repair programmes might lead DoD users away from smart system utilisation because they appear less promising than adaptations of current products. Are Service/Support Application Goals for meeting Logistics Requirements of DoD markets realistic? Dispatchers must apply the ability for applications to uncover smart techniques for equipment upgrade/repair success by utilisation of substitute resource component sourcing ticket scheduling. Being able to spot projects with potential early and meeting schedule “windows of opportunity”, enables service/support application success as technology advances increase and change at such rapid pace. By seeing future trends and new opportunities created, DoD markets can be captured & incremental progress realised. Incorporation of user requirement concepts and overall behaviour goals for expanding the utility of the application must become of great interest to DoD decision makers. Dispatchers must estimate what good equipment upgrade/repair outcomes are projected from parts component sourcing ticket scheduling. When projecting opportunities for DoD markets, look at what scope can be realistically assessed. Using this figure as a benchmark, factor in what infrastructure dispatchers require and DoD project market share from the bottom up. Then, factor in some assumptions on how many DoD users can be reached, how many user requirements and behavioural techniques will come from those contacts and how much upgrade/repair mission success can be generated by deploying the application. This provides good base from which to work in terms of capturing opportunity. Dispatcher determination of service/support application requirements may cause some decision makers in DoD to question if upgrade/repair simulations “pass” all elements currently be considered as viable in order for dispatcher utilisation of application to be successful? No, absolutely not. In fact, most applications will not “pass” all the elements of current DoD market requirements for viability. Most DoD users would probably agree that there is no one magic formula or test that can guarantee a successful application. The point of the process is to know and document the most crucial aspects of DoD markets and to highlight identification potential so challenges can be identified. Obviously, DoD decision makers want to make sure that the application venture passes most of the criteria, but it is not guaranteed that it will fail if it doesn’t. Dispatchers have considered whether or not to project the application as a larger organisation or if looking like a smaller and more DoD user-based orientation is of greater value. Actually, the best answer is to simply tell the truth about the organisation. Let your operations/plans dictate how large in scope the application is rather than worrying about how large or small you look to DoD users. Dispatchers must, at the end of the day, provide incredible value and high levels of service/support to equipment upgrade/repair simulations such that the size of the operation ultimately becomes irrelevant. For those of you listening to this answer and thinking, “but won’t the small size affect the ability to win larger DoD market share?”; here is your answer: If you are looking to win Super Bowl type results where your size becomes an issue, it probably is one. Dispatcher practise must not be to chase after equipment upgrade/repair projects that are larger than you have infrastructure to adequately support. One of the worst things application designers can do is to aim too high and not have the ability to support operations. If an opportunity is larger than the infrastructure to handle it independently, then it may be a good idea to bring in some amount of outside help. No matter what, never lie to DoD users about your capabilities. There is an classic expression: “Always tell the truth, it is easier to remember…”

Everyone has to start somewhere. Not everyone starts their first shop with all the bells & whistles. Let’s face it: You can’t have “Hangar Bay Heaven” without the aircraft base to support it, yet most of us dream about having the top shop in all of DoD. Let’s explain the building blocks you need to become a top shop. New shop executives have a whole host of things to be concerned about. They simply don’t know what they don’t know. They’re out there overwhelmed with pressure. We make it easy to see why. Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers have investigated the administrative factors that make for an efficient & practical supply route procurement pipeline detailing work order requirements for Substitute Fleet Part Components utilised in Maintenance/modernisation operations. Metrics for asset condition & performance are applied to contract quote status for procurement aiming to deploy Fleet Parts supply route patterns for meeting work order force structure scenario requirements.

Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers have concluded that DoD has bags of protocol but not much information! Here's a Work Order Quantum manifesto for the more ambitious: Just Connect, Integrate, Adapt, Expand & Apply!

Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers have taken Work Order Routing steps to ensure that the response provided to DoD installations for the sourcing of Fleet Parts is accurate. Consistent responses & follow-up on supplier episodes establishes credibility. Call handling template test scripts can be used to quote & standardise work orders for Maintenance/modernisation operations.

Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers break down DoD Work Orders for contract quotes & provide complete dispatch services designed to accomplish equipment maintenance/modernisation objectives. Examples are strategic, competitive, fiscal, technical & operational. Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers execute Daily substitute resource component sourcing ticket tables with reports for work order resolution & root cause determination by planning and scheduling orders & extracting work order information to meet supply line requests important for executing Maintenance/modernisation tasks. Work orders are released according to cost/price schedule determination in the contract procurement quote status update system in active state.

Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers teams work together to create Fleet equipment deployment programmes, processes and policies to mitigate risk & ensure accurate Repair/Upgrade Work Order routing for meeting the force structure requirements, including identification of any supply line episode discrepancies for escalation or resolution.

Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers distribute work orders for Fleet equipment status & deployment projects & test teams, Lead design of testing efforts, assist with application Support to resolve Maintenance/modernisation issues and Participate in supplier conference calls to determine proactive measures to ensure continuous quality improvements for important equipment support tasks. Test applications are established using best dispatch practise, developing test cases, writing test plans, providing and updating complete test scripts for work order completion.

Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers carry out assessments based on Detailed tracking of supply route service condition & performance based metrics for equipment status updates in order to incorporate rigor into equipment maintenance/modernisation work orders for future use. Current installation requests are developed & compared with existing system functions & Work Order requirements, determining testing priorities, addressing force structure scenarios for test case inclusion & recommending design concepts for interactions with suppliers.

Service Centre Help Desk Dispatchers teams Work within the timelines established for repair/deployment schedule turnaround times and generate validation documentation for supply line compliance in meeting Maintenance/modernisation requirements . Techniques include assisting and coordinating with installations tracking Fleet equipment deployment status schedule query reports with follow-up on new purchase tickets.

DoD logistics programmes must utilise available contract quote schedules for administration of equipment deployment sourcing at upgrade/repair sites. Identification & selection of supply line risk must not be dismissed since complications in structuring classification of contracts involves addressing uncertainty in how work orders harness fiscal benefits. Upgrade/Repair sites must exercise due diligence in work order creation, pursuing determination of supply line risks, requiring adoption/execution of logistics policy & procedures to follow from application of equipment condition/performance-based metrics & measures over short temporal windows determined by contract quote schedules. Clearly defined supply line communication & reporting channels are required to execute logistics policy related to contract quotes schedules to mitigate against creation of disjointed work order briefings at upgrade/repair sites due to sleepless nights incurred by Visiting Executive & other consequences of inadequate frameworks for risk administration. DoD would stand to benefit greatly from good written & visual representation of equipment condition/performance-based metrics & measures in dispatch of work orders utilised by the programme. Identification of changes in supply line routing techniques impeding accurate compilation of risk factors is major influence on dispatch of work orders leading to equipment deployments. It should be noted that costs of upgrade/repair site inquiry or investigation into supply line requirements may be significant, so minimal logistics frameworks must be created for input of information leading to a concrete determination of the size & scope of work orders. Actions must be designed to detail how supply line capacity affects contract quote schedules to dispatch risk factors precipitated by deficits in the sourcing of substitute resources. Receipt of work orders is critical to quality of information required for logistics programme process records tracking risk inherent in upgrade/repair operations dispatched when deficits in equipment condition/performance-based metrics & measures exist. Actions lead to asset tags dispatched in work orders required for the planning of mission scenarios embedded in contract quote schedules detailing: 1) Reliability, Control & upgrade/repair of equipment deployment 2) Benchmarking & Trend reporting 3) Phase Determination. Work order case directives have been designed for several operational contingency scenarios based on threshold of supply route line risks key to establishing contract quote schedules in detailing infrastructure logistics planning at upgrade/repair sites for equipment deployment determined by collection of asset record processes, trend reporting & other scrutiny. Substitute resource sourcing techniques have a significant asset identification tag replacement value based on equipment condition/performance-based metrics & measures, mitigating against trends of diminishing returns realised at disparate installations. Key logistics factors influence design of centralised work order dispatch programmes to include action detailing applications of supply line risk determinations automatically updated in determining contract quote schedules. Risk factors to be addressed by Upgrade/Repair site include: 1) Quality & Quantity of Quote Information, 2) Physical & Technical Quote Sourcing 3) Fiscal characteristics of Quote Phase & Frequency. Contract Quote Schedules line up with mission requirement contingency scenarios to create substitute equipment Asset Tracking Identification Tags designed for logistics work order operations required for deployment when upgrade/repair sites implement several unit element combinations of supply line routing application types for condition/performance-based metrics & measures. Tracking tags detailing operational logistics risks can be designed as components of contract quote schedules, contributing process control leading to customised action at upgrade/repair sites for work order dispatch to accounts for results of supply line route inquiries mitigating against accumulation of risk factors contributing to inaccurate asset identification tags for inclusion in contract quote schedules. Actions must be taken before installations apply time stamp to asset tracking transaction record. Equipment procurement baselines include: 1) Contract Applications & Utilisation levels 2) Task Increases due to upgrade/repair directives. Key logistics factors related to supply line route connection process controls are required for smart application at work sites subject to contract quote schedules addressed in new work order protocols designed to assign mission scenario requirements to multiple installations within parameters of equipment condition/performance-based metrics & measures. Locating equipment asset tracking identification tags available to upgrade/repair sites involved in determining force structure requirements for operations requires work order reconstruction design using logistics factors including availability, acquisition & records disposal. Supply Line Information is used as an input for assessing the outcome of interactions between installations in determination of contract quote schedules. Asset tracking applications are used to identify supply line routing techniques designed to mitigate against risks to installation programmes. An important difference between relatively simple equipment deployment contingency scenarios compared to advanced asset tracking logistics applications is scope of simple systems detecting presence of physical or Fiscal factors for singular contract quotes, while asset tracking programmes require more than one pass through upgrade/repair site system. More frequent contract quote schedule determinations are required so condition/performance-based metrics & measures can aggregate and correlate information for each fiscal line item in work orders. In general, logistics actions driving creation of equipment asset identification tags in contract quote scheduling systems never change, but individual changes for work orders associated with the asset identification tag can change when strength of supply line connections are determined but remains constant when finally included in equipment deployment. Upgrade/repair site processes include: 1) Asset description 2) Contingency scenario to be tasked 3) Deployment duration & return on Fiscal Factors. If primary purpose of route tracker applications is tracking fiscal risk factors rather than specific physical items, then contract quote correspondence at Upgrade/repair sites changes frequently according to deployment phase. In logistics applications controlling access to work orders, if asset identification tag codes act as access key for individual physical items, then nothing should change once the items are linked in contract quote schedules. Duplicate assets are procured to fill out work orders when substitute resource sourcing techniques cannot be identified & equipment portfolio pooling at Upgrade/Repair sites is not possible. New logistics technologies can support wide ranges of supply line routing applications, from asset tracking to contract quote schedule process control with mission implementation-specific requirements: 1) Quality/Phase of Operational Security 2) relationship between asset tag identification codes and installations. An installation work order site creation process of equipment asset tracking deployment must be reviewed based on substitute resource sourcing when use has been established for new logistics programmes—tagging/tracking of asset implementation has several iterations. Mission requirement scenarios are paired to supply line correspondence used for determining contract quote schedules in the entrance to work order builder so operational commitment exists at upgrade/repair sites with correct results dispatched. Work order directives pass through a bottleneck at upgrade/repair sites & are subsequently tagged in contract quote schedules upon deployment with Logistics logging system & condition/performance-based metrics are entered when equipment deployment proceeds from the installation where use is monitored. This Report addressed logistics risk factors to be considered at Upgrade/repair sites in creating contract quote schedules, including assessment of supply line routing connection techniques for Deployment of component equipment assets determined by building work orders to be utilised in mission requirement scenarios.

DoD commonly refers to “Materiel Provision” as the process for introducing new items into mission-critical systems, generally applying to new acquisition systems, but processes are many times fundamentally similar to system modifications, such as equipment upgrade/repair support. When new systems are required for introduction into field-level operations, it is important to take into account techniques for Logistics Strategies designed to deal with service suppliers in order to realise mission success. Accurate forecasting of DoD materiel demand is an essential factor in sizing operational equipment potential. Inaccurate forecasting leads to imperfect levels setting equipment up to hit big mission goals. An imperfect world means that DoD often times realises the result of either excess inventory or shortfalls in filling demand by installations tasked with critical mission requirements. Our review addresses demand forecasting relative to item introduction phase of equipment materiel support. We recommend actions that support objectives of DoD to create comprehensive weapons system level estimation framework so potential for operational success is reached quickly and accurately. What DoD lacks is a systematic method for evaluating equipment inventory from an classic operational economics point of view. In economics, efficiency is defined the costs of inputs for each unit of output. For DoD, inputs can be classified as the amount of equipment inventory purchases, but the unit of output is much more difficult to define. The “product” of DoD’s equipment enterprise is “Mission Readiness” But what is the unit of Readiness? When the collective goal of DoD is to maintain current levels of readiness, there is not always a change to measure, even while equipment purchases continue to be made. What we can measure is the efficiency of the demand forecasting process in a way that a Flashlight can light up a dark corner. Changes in missions, consumption factors, and other issues affect requirements and can lead to excess inventory. Reacting to on-order excess is important because this excess can be identified before coming in the DoD supply system and while it is still possible to prevent. Sometimes, this may cause part or all of the stock on-order to be identified as potential reutilisation stock. When this happens, DoD policy requires timely action to reduce or cancel orders before contract award and to consider terminating contracts for certain items.If the buy is still in the procurement request stage, and no award has been made, DoD officials can make quick reductions because no funds have been obligated and there is no bound agreement with the suppliers. Once a contract is in place, termination may become non-economical and more difficult. DLA does not procure supply support request forecasts from the services until preliminary requisitions are received, which initially and predictably leads to backorders. Commonly cited reasons for this problem include historically poor buy-back rates and lack of investment in demand forecast tools by the services. Proposed approaches include allowing the military services to put into place smart policy for dealing with consumable items required for equipment upgrade/repair for an interim period before transferring item management over to DLA or require that the services fund procurement of some portion of the supply support request forecasts. Changes in operations will cause forecasts to change which in turn will cause inventory requirements levels to change. Thus, inventory procured to support a given operating tempo may become excess because the operating tempo declines over time. In light of this reality, we can conclude that inventory excesses and shortfalls cannot be avoided, even with perfect knowledge of the future. Improvements in demand forecasting will only reduce inventory excesses and shortfalls, it will not eliminated them. Our review of excess and shortfall items resulted in several findings and highlighted actions that should be taken. The “Base Repair Pipeline” is the number of spare parts that are expected to be tied up in the Equipment Upgrade/Repair operations at any given time. To satisfy mission demand at field-level installations while spare parts are in the Base Repair Pipeline, the installation would need to stock on-hand quantity equal to or greater than the number of spare parts to undergo participation in Base Repair. Aircraft Flight Line examples will serve to illustrate “Pipeline” concepts in concrete terms. If we forecast that a component will fail once every 100 flying hours with an installation forecast of performing sorties totaling 200 flying hours/day, then we would anticipate 2 failures/day of the component. If we expect the Repair to take 3 days, then we define stock level requirements of 6 to cover installation demand for defined base repair period. Next, we look at a more realistic Base Repair Pipeline Structure. In this example, only a portion of the failures get repaired at the base. Some are returned to the Depot and others are rejected by the Depot. The Base Repair Period Time only refers to component failures that are Repair at the Field-Level Installation. For the failures that are returned to the Depot, DoD applies resupply times that cover base processing and transport to the Depot, depot repair period time, Depot processing and transport back to the Field-level installation. For failures that are rejected at the Depot, DoD applies a Pipeline Time that includes administrative lead time at the Depot, production time at the supplier and transport time back to the base. In some cases, the Depot uses the same parts during scheduled sustainment as it would for field-level repair required because of real-time failure. Just as the base has a failure rate as function of Flying Hours, the Depot has a corresponding replacement percentage expressing the number of failures as function of regularly scheduled sustainment operations. For example, if the Depot expects to perform 24 scheduled actions over the next year, and the forecasted replacement rate is 50% then the Depot would expect 12 failures over course of the year. If the Depot repair period time is 30 days, then the Depot would have a scheduled sustainment pipeline on 1 Spare Part. We found that excess inventories predominately comprise reparable items, most of which were used at least once. Depending on the military service, we found that reparable items constitute more than 90% of excess inventory and 60-80% of the excess is unserviceable items. For a reparable item to be unserviceable, it must have been used at least once since it entered the DoD supply system and now is in need of repair before it can be used again. When reparable items fail, the military services requisition a new one and the unserviceable item may be either repaired or retained in an unserviceable condition. As weapon systems programmes and demand expand and contract over time, requirements increase and decrease, in turn. Repair schedules are based on current requirements, but the total number of reparable items in the supply system is based on peak buy requirements. Unserviceable stock is an indication that the items were needed at one time, but not currently. Because an unserviceable item may be needed in the future, it may not make sense to throw it away. Excess inventory is a greater problem with older items. Reports show the majority of items with excess have been in the system for more than 10 years and many have been in the system for more than 20 years. This indicates increased challenges with items in the sustainment and decommissioning phases. It also highlights the importance of reporting on and addressing the many changing influences of different service life stages when developing forecasting and inventory improvements. Much of the excess inventory reparable items exist in unserviceable condition. Unserviceable condition indicates the items have been used, sometimes repeatedly. This highlights the need to specifically address unserviceable inventory when developing effective and efficient approaches to establish new strategy. The ability to accurately forecast is an issue with both excess and shortfall items. Reports uncover opportunities for improving forecasting accuracy using standardised forecasting techniques however there is an even greater need for forecasting methods that address items with limited forecast potential. This highlights need to create and implement more ways to more effectively and efficiently set inventory levels for low demand items. The military services do not measure demand accuracy forecasts for item introduction forecasts. Many of the metrics used to assess forecast accuracy for sustainment are not useful for item introductions when little demand reporting has been made available. The percent error metric is the most appropriate metric to measure forecast accuracy for new item introductions because it measures both the amount of error and the direction, i.e. under- or over-forecast. Forecasting is not the only driver for excess. There are reasons other than inaccurate forecasts that can lead to excess inventory such as reductions in readiness levels & unserviceable returns that exceed current demand rates. We have highlighted the importance of a comprehensive inventory strategy approach that addresses timely review of declared excess, pre-screening of returns and review and validation of current retention methods. Forecasting is not the only driver for shortfalls. There are reasons other than inaccurate forecasts that can lead to inventory shortfalls such as increases in lead time, repair period times & changes in operational availability targets. This again highlights the importance of a comprehensive inventory strategy, one that not only reduces unnecessary excess, but does not affect readiness objectives. There is no universal agreement on inventory stratification terminology. Congress and DoD have disagreed with GAO on what constitutes excess inventory and there are no standard methods for shortfalls. GAO identified shortfalls when inventory levels dipped below the reorder requirement or requirements objective threshold. Even though these measures are designed to trigger inventory replenishment for DoD, they often do not translate into operational impact. DoD metrics in this area use stock due-out or backorders to identify when inventory levels have fallen below operational requirements. Furthermore, the military services do not interpret uniform stratification results with clear operational visibility of stratification, and continues to diminish with system modernisation. This highlights the need for defining and implementing new inventory stratification methods that will better capture rationale behind inventory decisions and improve inventory reporting and tracking. Congress has defined excess inventory as inventory in excess of approved acquisition objectives and not needed for economic or contingency retention. Although this definition matches DoD definition for potential reutilised stock, it differs from the definition GAO used as the basis for its findings. Also, GAO used a random probability sample and did not consider life phase as a distinguishing factor. Comments made by the services in response to GAO report explained that many of the excess items with no current demand are used on older weapons systems and cannot be procured. According to the services, these items may still have future demands so items are retained for future use. This fact adds to the complexity of accurately forecasting demand for these items and weighing the need to retain inventory. Forecasting is an imperfect prediction of the future. The military services tend to over-forecast demands for new item introductions. Among the reasons for this is majority of demands on the military services are intermittent, making it very difficult to forecast. Even with the best statistical models. Forecasts for new item introductions are less reliable than for sustainable items since they are largely based on engineering estimates. As actual usage information becomes available combining historical demand information at installations with engineering estimates can improve the forecast. Inventory overages and shortages are not solely due to inaccurate demand forecasts. Rather, inventory levels are largely determined by a combination of forecasts for demand, resupply time and operational hours. An error in any one of these forecasts will likely result in an inventory imbalance. Even under the best conditions, demand forecasting methods will inevitably produce overages and shortages for reparable items because of the randomness of demand each year. The advent of readiness-based spares models that consider on-hand inventory further blurs the distinction as to what constitutes excess inventory. The reason is, in determining best mix of inventory to achieve a weapons system operational readiness goals, readiness-based spares models apply what would have been excesses of one item to offset the need to procure other items. Inventory overages vary depending on application of measurement techniques. For the weapon system in the case study overages range from 10% to 40% with the most likely value ending at about 20%. Inventory overages are a result of a combination of demand, resupply and operating hours, as well as their interaction and not solely a result of demand rates. For example, reports indicate that high spares requirements occurred in the early years of a system, while operating hours are very low because demand rates and resupply times were very large. Even under the best of conditions, demand forecasting methods will produce overages. The better forecasting methods, which apply proven statistical methods yield very small overage amounts, whereas the methods that overreact to the latest demands could produce overages of 10%. Many of the metrics used to predict accuracy for sustainment are not useful for item introduction when little historical demand information from installations is available. At the item level, the percent error metric is the most appropriate metric to estimate forecast accuracy for new item introduction because it measures both the magnitude and direction of the error. While the above areas were developed in the context of the item introduction phase, the strength of these metrics are equally applicable to all phases of an item’s service life and they should be considered as the primary candidates for DoD forecast accuracy metrics. The use of error metrics for initial forecasts & repository for collecting initial demand error measurements would provide an important feedback mechanism to permit process improvement. DoD can mitigate operational risks by adopting supply line assessment programmes throughout all sustainment stages. Current DoD policy was revised to adopt a Supply Line approach to sustainment several years ago, but the policy still relies on inconsistent techniques to mitigate risks to mission-critical operations. DoD policy is silent on addressing risks to Equipment Materiel Upgrade/Repair Support at Field-Level Installations.

We recommend DoD conduct site visits of Fleet Equipment Upgrade/Repair Sites on regular basis to determine patterns of replacement part sourcing techniques on work orders subject to scripted conference call connections with suppliers.

Original supplier sources are often utilised more frequently at Upgrade/Repair sites because sometimes equipment parts from other sources do not fit as well into standardised work order schedule policies/procedures.

The key work order logistics factor for upgrade/repair operations administrators cited in our Job Site Visits was availability of replacement equipment parts.

Original Supplier Sources for equipment parts may not be best choice & mission requirements are another major influence on how upgrade/repair sites establish policy/procedures for Jobs in Work Orders.

Site visit executive has determined decisions made based on field-level mission requirements often impose Fiscal & Schedule restrictions influencing determination of best suppliers to source from for equipment upgrade/repair jobs. Fleet Equipment upgrade/repair process rules define what supply line information is to be routed and to what installation. For example, dispatchers can set up logistics rules defining conditions instances work orders must meet before equipment upgrade/repair processes advance. Automated work order prompts to the next equipment condition tracking activity are embedded in Logistics processes, as well as site visit-specific schedules governing installation receipts of Upgrade/Repair Priority Approval requests based on key supply line commitment criteria. The route tracker application uses scripted equipment condition evaluations determining the next upgrade/repair activity based on information dispatchers set up in spare parts-specific attribute structures, such as work order status & recipient rules determining account flash routing to installations. As with routes, dispatchers determine the complexity of equipment upgrade/repair rules according to the schedule requirements of installations. For example, logistics considerations can set up work orders to progress to the next step only when predefined supply line threshold values have been met.

Routes define the path along which equipment upgrade/repair processes move a work order. Depending on site visit requirements, routes can be relatively simple & sequential, or increasingly complex, with joins or splits, parallel routing, iterative routing, loops and so on.

Dispatchers can set up equipment upgrade/repair categorisation series by creating sequentially constrained sourcing subroutines so one process calls another on the supply line. This procedure is especially useful when dispatchers need to reuse spare parts-specific components within other processes. Visiting site visit Executive has empowered dispatchers to review, approve, or reject work orders. After a work order is created, route tracker applications send account flashes to notify the repair/upgrade site visit location responsible for reviewing & approving the work order. When dispatchers approve a work order, the route tracker application sends an account flash to the next installation on the work order approval route. If work orders are rejected, the route tracker application sends an account flash back to the originator of the work order. Site Visit Executive has established Upgrade/Repair Logistics Requirement Reminder Sets to trigger Scheduling Workbench programme functions so dispatchers can review account flash properties & provide the ability to cross-reference spare parts-specific components.

Dispatchers can also place a work order on hold if installations want to approve or reject the work order at a later time b/c supply line purchase receipt inquiries have determined mission requirements are not satisfactory. During the approval process, the route tracker application generates Logistics report records for user-based approvals & rejections that have been composed upon comparison to template work orders run with supplier capacity plans.

If dispatchers must reject a work order after initially approving it, the route tracker application creates Upgrade/Repair report records for the rejection & stores the original approval record for supply line connection review. Supply line report records are used to review spare parts-specific information & schedules about the work orders that dispatchers group into routing specifications. Site Visit Executive can review information about the specific upgrade/repair tasks associated w/ the supply line, resource requirements, and so on. For example, dispatchers can create summary & detail schedule status information so work orders can be routed by installation.